Adverse Events and Serious Adverse Events
Adverse Events and Serious Adverse Events
Investigator Kick-off Meeting
January 30-31, Clearwater, Florida
Jodie Riley, MISM and Robert Silbergleit
Adverse Events
●
A
d
v
e
r
s
e
E
v
e
n
t
s
(
A
E
s
)
a
r
e
“
.
.
.
a
n
y
u
n
t
o
w
a
r
d
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
i
n
a
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
h
a
t
w
a
s
n
o
t
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
w
h
i
c
h
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
i
l
y
h
a
v
e
a
c
a
u
s
a
l
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
t
o
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
y
d
r
u
g
…
”
●
Events existing prior to randomization should not be reported as AEs,
unless there is a change in severity.
●
Pre-existing conditions that are discovered after randomization are not
adverse events. These should be documented as medical history.
●
Abnormal lab values collected after randomization that are considered
to be clinically significant by the site investigator are adverse events.
Serious Adverse Events
Serious Adverse Events (SAEs):
●
Are Fatal
●
Are Life-threatening
●
Result in hospitalization/prolonging of hospitalization – excluding
optional, pre-planned surgery
●
Result in disability/congenital anomaly
●
Require intervention to prevent permanent impairment
or damage
Reporting AEs
●
Reported on Form 104 – Adverse Event Case Report Form (CRF)
●
One AE per CRF
●
Report diagnosis, not symptoms
○
Fever, cough, chest pain, crackles = pneumonia
●
Avoid abbreviations/colloquialisms
Reporting AEs
●
Death, surgery, intubation, etc. are NOT adverse events. They are
outcomes of adverse events.
●
All AEs will be coded using MedDRA.
●
A new feature of WebDCU
TM
will auto-populate the Lowest Level Term
when 3 or more letters are entered into the name field.
●
Pick the highest level of specificity.
Reporting Requirements for AEs
●
AE reporting – from Randomization through Day 6 or Hospital Discharge,
whichever comes first
●
SAE reporting – from Randomization through End of Study
Data Entry Timelines for AEs
●
N
o
n
-
s
e
r
i
o
u
s
A
E
s
m
u
s
t
b
e
e
n
t
e
r
e
d
a
n
d
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
i
n
t
o
W
e
b
D
C
U
T
M
w
i
t
h
i
n
5
d
a
y
s
o
f
d
a
t
a
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
●
S
A
E
s
m
u
s
t
b
e
e
n
t
e
r
e
d
a
n
d
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
i
n
t
o
W
e
b
D
C
U
T
M
w
i
t
h
i
n
2
4
h
o
u
r
s
o
f
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
y
.
Reporting SAEs
SAEs require additional information to be submitted on the AE CRF:
●
Detailed description of the event
●
Relevant tests/laboratory data
●
Relevant history and pre-existing conditions
●
Concomitant medications
SAE Narratives
●
Narratives assist the Independent Medical Safety Monitor (IMSM) in
reviewing the event.
●
Narratives are pre-populated into the MedWatch form, if expedited
reporting is required.
●
Remove any protected health information (PHI) from the narrative
○
i.e., subject, physician or institution name
IMSM Review Process
●
Site enters data and submits AE CRF into WebDCU
TM
●
Automatic e-mail notifications to Site Manager (SM) and Internal Quality
Reviewer (IQR)
●
If SAE and data is sufficient, automatic e-mail notification sent to the
IMSM
●
IMSM blindly reviews the event and indicates whether it is serious,
unexpected and study intervention-related
●
SM closes review process
Adverse Events –
key points
•
Do not report events EXISTING PRIOR to randomization
(unless there is a change in severity)
•
Report the DIAGNOSIS, not the symptoms:
Fever, cough, chest pain, crackles = pneumonia
•
Report the PATHOLOGY, not the outcome or treatment
Not ‘death’ but the event that caused death
CD
Relatedness
Relatedness algorithm
N
o
t
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
•
T
h
e
t
i
m
i
n
g
i
s
w
r
o
n
g
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
w
a
s
c
l
e
a
r
l
y
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
c
a
u
s
e
U
n
l
i
k
e
l
y
(
b
o
t
h
o
f
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
,
b
u
t
t
i
m
i
n
g
d
o
e
s
n
’
t
m
a
t
t
e
r
)
•
Another cause is possible
•
Not something the intervention is
known to cause
R
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
y
(
2
o
f
3
)
•
Timing is suggestive.
•
Not readily caused by something else
•
T
h
i
s
i
s
s
o
m
e
t
h
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
i
s
k
n
o
w
n
t
o
c
a
u
s
e
.
D
e
f
i
n
i
t
e
l
y
(
m
u
s
t
h
a
v
e
a
l
l
3
)
•
Timing suggests intervention caused
the problem.
•
No other possible cause.
•
This is something the intervention is
known to cause.
While being screened for enrollment in
ICECAP
, a 52 yo
comatose survivor of OHCA
has a prolonged seizure requiring
treatment which resolves after several rounds of
anticonvulsants. She is subsequently appropriately enrolled.
Anticonvulsant medications are continued after enrollment as is
continuous EEG monitoring.
Adverse event?
Yes / No
Serious?
Yes / No
Related?
A. Not related
B.
Unlikely
C.
Reasonable Possibly
D.
Definitely
While being screened for enrollment in ICECAP, a 52 yo
comatose survivor of OHCA
has a prolonged seizure requiring
treatment which resolves after several rounds of
anticonvulsants. She is subsequently appropriately enrolled.
Anticonvulsant medications are continued after enrollment as is
continuous EEG monitoring. Brief electrographic seizures are
seen. No AED are added or changed.
Adverse event?
Yes / No
Serious?
Yes / No
Related?
A. Not related
B.
Unlikely
C.
Reasonable Possibly
D.
Definitely
While being screened for enrollment in ICECAP, a 52 yo
comatose survivor of OHCA
has a prolonged seizure requiring
treatment which resolves after several rounds of
anticonvulsants. She is subsequently appropriately enrolled.
Despite continued anticonvulsants she develops more seizures in
the ICU, and her propofol is titrated up from mild sedation to
burst suppression.
Adverse event?
Yes / No
Serious?
Yes / No
Related?
A. Not related
B.
Unlikely
C.
Reasonable Possibly
D.
Definitely
A
6
2 yo with
OHCA
aspirates while being endotracheally
intubated, and is subsequently appropriately enrolled in
ICECAP
. On hospital day 2, he develops pneumonitis, and his
PEEP is increased to improve recruitment. Three hours later he
decompensates, is found to have a pneumothorax. A chest tube
is placed without complications.
Adverse event?
Yes / No
Serious?
Yes / No
Related?
A. Not related
B.
Unlikely
C.
Reasonable Possibly
D.
Definitely
Adverse event?
Yes / No
Serious?
Yes / No
A
6
2 yo with
OHCA
has a surface cooling device applied and
is
subsequently
enrolled in BOOST. On hospital day
4
,
a patch of
skin under the cooling pad appears to have a low grade
thermal injury. The cooling pad is repositioned to avoid
further injury.
Related?
A. Not related
B.
Unlikely
C.
Reasonable Possibly
D.
Definitely
An
4
8 yo with
OHCA at the gym
is appropriately enrolled. On
ICU day 3 his routine metabolic panel shows a potassium of 3.2
and an AST of 99 for which he receives no specific intervention.
Adverse event?
Yes / No
Serious?
Yes / No
Related?
A. Not related
B.
Unlikely
C.
Reasonable Possibly
D.
Definitely
Adverse event?
Yes / No
Serious?
Yes / No
An 48 yo with OHCA at the gym is appropriately enrolled.
On ICU day 3,
after rewarming
, his routine metabolic panel
shows a potassium of 3.2 and an AST of 99 for which he receives,
by an electrolyte replacement protocol, 40 mEq of potassium by
orogastric tube.
Related?
A. Not related
B.
Unlikely
C.
Reasonable Possibly
D.
Definitely
Related?
A. Not related
B.
Unlikely
C.
Reasonable Possibly
D.
Definitely
Adverse event?
Yes / No
Serious?
Yes / No
An 85 yo with OHCA at the casino is appropriately enrolled.
On ICU day
3
,
while still at a target temperature of 33
degrees
,
his Foley catheter is accidentally and traumatically
discontinued with the balloon inflated. He has extensive
urethral bleeding, urology is consulted, a new urinary
catheter is placed, but he continues to ooze for 14 hours.
He has 2 gram drop in hemoglobin for which he is
transfused.
An 48 yo with OHCA at the gym is appropriately enrolled
.
On ICU day
4
, he has a transient ep
isode of hypoxia and
tachycardia and undergoes CT pulmonary angiogram. The
CT shows no evidence of PE, but also shows numerous rib
fractures not seen on prior chest X-rays.
Adverse event?
Yes / No
Serious?
Yes / No
Expected?
Yes / No
Related?
A. Not related
B.
Unlikely
C.
Reasonable Possibly
D.
Definitely
“I just have to create a few loose ends for other people
to clear up, and then I can out of here.”
Write good SAE narratives
Be concise but complete (not comprehensive)
•
Include only the pertinent PMH and HPI
•
Describe the event
•
Describe the response
•
Describe the outcome
•
And say when each of those happened
Look for and respond to queries promptly
How are SAE narratives used?
Medical safety monitor
DSMB
Study Leadership
Example narrative
A 40 year old female bicyclist suffered a TBI with SAH and was
appropriately enrolled at 7/10/19. On 7/12/19, she returned to the ICU from
radiology for a follow up head CT. At 23:15 she became hypotensive to
85/45, tachycardic to 122, and had an increased FiO2 requirement. A chest
x-ray at 23:35 was unremarkable, but a PE protocol chest CT at 00:45 on
7/13/19 demonstrated saddle pulmonary emboli and evidence of right heart
strain. Interventional radiology performed suction thrombectomy and IVC
filter placement later that day. On 7/14/19 she was hemodynamically
stable, and there were no further thromboembolic complications.
Too much
35 y.o. male with a history of anxiety, bipolar affective disorder, schizophrenia, and
previous seizure event thought to be EtOH related presented to enrolling center ED
via EMS 2/8/17 at 20:47 with seizures. Seizure in route abated with 4mg midazolam
IM EMS administered. On initial assessment patient was sedated, but responded to
noxious stimuli. Sedation thought to be due to EtOH, versed, and post-ictal state.
Labs and CT head ordered. In CT patient had repeat seizure. He was given
midazolam 3 mg IM and was brought back to ER. He appeared to continue to be
having seizure so additional midazolam 3 mg IV was given. Seizure appeared to
resolve. Neurology consulted to ER. Patient return of seizures occurred at
approximately 2240. He was given an additional lorazepam 2 mg IV. Seizure
continued for 5 minutes so ESETT drug was given. Study drug infusion started at
23:01. During infusion, pt appeared to have aspiration event. Infusion completed and
patient stopped seizing and withdrew from nailbed pressure. At 20 minute assessment
he was still responding to noxious stimulation. He was intubated for airway protection
due to apparent aspiration event. He was sedated with propofol post intubation. Pt
was admitted to the ICU for further diagnosis and management. 60 minute
assessment at 00:15 revealed pt was sedated but withdrew from nailbed pressure. On
2/10/17 about 13:15 he was electively extubated. 2/10/17 1900 many verbally
aggressive outbursts noted. 2/11/17 09:03 patient left AMA, after psychiatric
evaluation
Too much - continued
35 y.o.
male
with
a history of anxiety, bipolar affective disorder, schizophrenia,
complex psychiatric history
and
previous seizure event thought to be EtOH related
and prior alcohol related seizures…
presented to enrolling center ED via EMS 2/8/17 at 20:47 with seizures. Seizure in
route abated with 4mg midazolam IM EMS administered. On initial assessment
patient was sedated, but responded to noxious stimuli. Sedation thought to be due to
EtOH, versed, and post-ictal state. Labs and CT head ordered. In CT patient had
repeat seizure. He was given midazolam 3 mg IM and was brought back to ER. He
appeared to continue to be having seizure so additional midazolam 3 mg IV was
given. Seizure appeared to resolve. Neurology consulted to ER. Patient return of
seizures occurred at approximately 2240. He was given an additional lorazepam 2 mg
IV. Seizure continued for 5 minutes so ESETT drug was given. Study drug infusion
started at 23:01. During infusion, pt appeared to have aspiration event.
…had stuttering status epilepticus, received midazolam 10 mg and lorazepam 2 mg in
divided doses over 2 hours, and enrolled on 2/8/17 at 23:01, followed by an aspiration
event and transient hypoxia. ….
Too much - continued
Infusion completed and patient stopped seizing and withdrew from nailbed pressure.
At 20 minute assessment he was still responding to noxious stimulation. He was
intubated for airway protection due to apparent aspiration event.
He stopped seizing but remained poorly responsive. He was endotracheally intubated
at 23:25 for airway protective and decreased level of consciousness and risk of further
aspiration.
He was sedated with propofol post intubation. Pt was admitted to the ICU for further
diagnosis and management. 60 minute assessment at 00:15 revealed pt was sedated
but withdrew from nailbed pressure.
He was sedated with propofol and admitted to ICU. Normal CXR and no sequelae of
aspiration on 2/9/17.
On 2/10/17 about 13:15 he was electively extubated. 2/10/17 1900 many verbally
aggressive outbursts noted. 2/11/17 09:03 patient left AMA, after psychiatric
evaluation
Extubated on 2/10/17.
Too much - resolution
35 y.o. male with a history of anxiety, bipolar
affective disorder, schizophrenia, and previous
seizure event thought to be EtOH related presented
to enrolling center ED via EMS 2/8/17 at 20:47 with
seizures. Seizure in route abated with 4mg
midazolam IM EMS administered. On initial
assessment patient was sedated, but responded to
noxious stimuli. Sedation thought to be due to EtOH,
versed, and post-ictal state. Labs and CT head
ordered. In CT patient had repeat seizure. He was
given midazolam 3 mg IM and was brought back to
ER. He appeared to continue to be having seizure
so additional midazolam 3 mg IV was given. Seizure
appeared to resolve. Neurology consulted to ER.
Patient return of seizures occurred at approximately
2240. He was given an additional lorazepam 2 mg
IV. Seizure continued for 5 minutes so ESETT drug
was given. Study drug infusion started at 23:01.
During infusion, pt appeared to have aspiration
event. Infusion completed and patient stopped
seizing and withdrew from nailbed pressure. At 20
minute assessment he was still responding to
noxious stimulation. He was intubated for airway
protection due to apparent aspiration event. He was
sedated with propofol post intubation. Pt was
admitted to the ICU for further diagnosis and
management. 60 minute assessment at 00:15
revealed pt was sedated but withdrew from nailbed
pressure. On 2/10/17 about 13:15 he was electively
extubated. 2/10/17 1900 many verbally aggressive
outbursts noted. 2/11/17 09:03 patient left AMA,
after psychiatric evaluation
A 35 yo with complex psychiatric history and prior
alcohol related seizures had stuttering status
epilepticus, received midazolam 10 mg and
lorazepam 2 mg in divided doses over 2 hours, and
enrolled on 2/8/17 at 23:01, followed by an
aspiration event and transient hypoxia. He stopped
seizing but remained poorly responsive. He was
endotracheally intubated at 23:25 for airway
protective and decreased level of consciousness
and risk of further aspiration. He was sedated with
propofol and admitted to ICU. Normal CXR and no
sequelae of aspiration on 2/9/17. Extubated on
2/10/17.
Not enough
•
Blood culture positive for beta hemolytic strep, left peripheral line. Patient
started Levaquin 750 mg oral tablet qd x 10 days
Not
enough
•
Blood culture positive for beta hemolytic strep, left peripheral line. Patient
started Levaquin 750 mg oral tablet qd x 10 days
•
A 42 yo with epilepsy and prior TBI was enrolled on 3/15/17 at 9:02PM. On
[date?] she had fever, leukocytosis, and underwent a workup for an
infectious source. Blood culture grew strep agalactiae sensitive to
ceftriaxone and levofloxacin, but no other source was found. She was
treated with ceftriaxone IV x 4 days, and levofloxacin PO x 10 days, and
had no further fevers.
Style points
•
Use generic drug names
•
Use a spell checker
•
Have the site PI read critically
Questions?
Adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) play a crucial role in clinical trial reporting. AEs are untoward medical occurrences in subjects, while SAEs are more severe outcomes. Proper reporting and classification of these events are vital for the integrity of study data. Learn about the criteria, reporting requirements, and data entry timelines for AEs and SAEs in clinical research.
Uploaded on Feb 16, 2025 | 0 Views
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Adverse Events and Serious Adverse Events Jodie Riley, MISM and Robert Silbergleit Investigator Kick-off Meeting January 30-31, Clearwater, Florida
Adverse Events Adverse Events (AEs) are . . . any untoward medical occurrence in a subject that was not previously identified which does not necessarily have a causal relationship to the study drug Events existing prior to randomization should not be reported as AEs, unless there is a change in severity. Pre-existing conditions that are discovered after randomization are not adverse events. These should be documented as medical history. Abnormal lab values collected after randomization that are considered to be clinically significant by the site investigator are adverse events.
Serious Adverse Events Serious Adverse Events (SAEs): Are Fatal Are Life-threatening Result in hospitalization/prolonging of hospitalization excluding optional, pre-planned surgery Result in disability/congenital anomaly Require intervention to prevent permanent impairment or damage
Reporting AEs Reported on Form 104 Adverse Event Case Report Form (CRF) One AE per CRF Report diagnosis, not symptoms Fever, cough, chest pain, crackles = pneumonia Avoid abbreviations/colloquialisms
Reporting AEs Death, surgery, intubation, etc. are NOT adverse events. They are outcomes of adverse events. All AEs will be coded using MedDRA. A new feature of WebDCUTMwill auto-populate the Lowest Level Term when 3 or more letters are entered into the name field. Pick the highest level of specificity.
Reporting Requirements for AEs AE reporting from Randomization through Day 6 or Hospital Discharge, whichever comes first SAE reporting from Randomization through End of Study
Data Entry Timelines for AEs Non-serious AEs must be entered and submitted into WebDCUTMwithin 5 days of data collection. SAEs must be entered and submitted into WebDCUTMwithin 24 hours of discovery.
Reporting SAEs SAEs require additional information to be submitted on the AE CRF: Detailed description of the event Relevant tests/laboratory data Relevant history and pre-existing conditions Concomitant medications
SAE Narratives Narratives assist the Independent Medical Safety Monitor (IMSM) in reviewing the event. Narratives are pre-populated into the MedWatch form, if expedited reporting is required. Remove any protected health information (PHI) from the narrative i.e., subject, physician or institution name
IMSM Review Process Site enters data and submits AE CRF into WebDCUTM Automatic e-mail notifications to Site Manager (SM) and Internal Quality Reviewer (IQR) If SAE and data is sufficient, automatic e-mail notification sent to the IMSM IMSM blindly reviews the event and indicates whether it is serious, unexpected and study intervention-related SM closes review process
Adverse Events key points Do not report events EXISTING PRIOR to randomization (unless there is a change in severity) Report the DIAGNOSIS, not the symptoms: Fever, cough, chest pain, crackles = pneumonia Report the PATHOLOGY, not the outcome or treatment Not death but the event that caused death CD
Relatedness Relatedness algorithm Reasonable Possibly (2 of 3) Timing is suggestive. Not readily caused by something else This is something the intervention is known to cause. Not Related The timing is wrong and there was clearly another cause Unlikely (both of the following, but timing doesn t matter) Another cause is possible Not something the intervention is known to cause Definitely (must have all 3) Timing suggests intervention caused the problem. No other possible cause. This is something the intervention is known to cause.
While being screened for enrollment in ICECAP, a 52 yo comatose survivor of OHCA has a prolonged seizure requiring treatment which resolves after several rounds of anticonvulsants. She is subsequently appropriately enrolled. Anticonvulsant medications are continued after enrollment as is continuous EEG monitoring. Adverse event? Yes / No Serious? Yes / No Related? A. Not related B. Unlikely C. Reasonable Possibly D. Definitely
While being screened for enrollment in ICECAP, a 52 yo comatose survivor of OHCA has a prolonged seizure requiring treatment which resolves after several rounds of anticonvulsants. She is subsequently appropriately enrolled. Anticonvulsant medications are continued after enrollment as is continuous EEG monitoring. Brief electrographic seizures are seen. No AED are added or changed. Adverse event? Yes / No Serious? Yes / No Related? A. Not related B. Unlikely C. Reasonable Possibly D. Definitely
While being screened for enrollment in ICECAP, a 52 yo comatose survivor of OHCA has a prolonged seizure requiring treatment which resolves after several rounds of anticonvulsants. She is subsequently appropriately enrolled. Despite continued anticonvulsants she develops more seizures in the ICU, and her propofol is titrated up from mild sedation to burst suppression. Adverse event? Yes / No Serious? Yes / No Related? A. Not related B. Unlikely C. Reasonable Possibly D. Definitely
A 62 yo with OHCA aspirates while being endotracheally intubated, and is subsequently appropriately enrolled in ICECAP. On hospital day 2, he develops pneumonitis, and his PEEP is increased to improve recruitment. Three hours later he decompensates, is found to have a pneumothorax. A chest tube is placed without complications. Adverse event? Yes / No Serious? Yes / No Related? A. Not related B. Unlikely C. Reasonable Possibly D. Definitely
A 62 yo with OHCA has a surface cooling device applied and is subsequently enrolled in BOOST. On hospital day 4, a patch of skin under the cooling pad appears to have a low grade thermal injury. The cooling pad is repositioned to avoid further injury. Adverse event? Yes / No Serious? Yes / No Related? A. Not related B. Unlikely C. Reasonable Possibly D. Definitely
An 48 yo with OHCA at the gym is appropriately enrolled. On ICU day 3 his routine metabolic panel shows a potassium of 3.2 and an AST of 99 for which he receives no specific intervention. Adverse event? Yes / No Serious? Yes / No Related? A. Not related B. Unlikely C. Reasonable Possibly D. Definitely
An 48 yo with OHCA at the gym is appropriately enrolled. On ICU day 3, after rewarming, his routine metabolic panel shows a potassium of 3.2 and an AST of 99 for which he receives, by an electrolyte replacement protocol, 40 mEq of potassium by orogastric tube. Adverse event? Yes / No Serious? Yes / No Related? A. Not related B. Unlikely C. Reasonable Possibly D. Definitely
An 85 yo with OHCA at the casino is appropriately enrolled. On ICU day 3, while still at a target temperature of 33 degrees, his Foley catheter is accidentally and traumatically discontinued with the balloon inflated. He has extensive urethral bleeding, urology is consulted, a new urinary catheter is placed, but he continues to ooze for 14 hours. He has 2 gram drop in hemoglobin for which he is transfused. Adverse event? Yes / No Serious? Yes / No Related? A. Not related B. Unlikely C. Reasonable Possibly D. Definitely
An 48 yo with OHCA at the gym is appropriately enrolled. On ICU day 4, he has a transient episode of hypoxia and tachycardia and undergoes CT pulmonary angiogram. The CT shows no evidence of PE, but also shows numerous rib fractures not seen on prior chest X-rays. Adverse event? Yes / No Serious? Yes / No Expected? Yes / No Related? A. Not related B. Unlikely C. Reasonable Possibly D. Definitely
I just have to create a few loose ends for other people to clear up, and then I can out of here.
Write good SAE narratives Be concise but complete (not comprehensive) Include only the pertinent PMH and HPI Describe the event Describe the response Describe the outcome And say when each of those happened Look for and respond to queries promptly
How are SAE narratives used? Medical safety monitor DSMB Study Leadership
Example narrative A 40 year old female bicyclist suffered a TBI with SAH and was appropriately enrolled at 7/10/19. On 7/12/19, she returned to the ICU from radiology for a follow up head CT. At 23:15 she became hypotensive to 85/45, tachycardic to 122, and had an increased FiO2 requirement. A chest x-ray at 23:35 was unremarkable, but a PE protocol chest CT at 00:45 on 7/13/19 demonstrated saddle pulmonary emboli and evidence of right heart strain. Interventional radiology performed suction thrombectomy and IVC filter placement later that day. On 7/14/19 she was hemodynamically stable, and there were no further thromboembolic complications.
Too much 35 y.o. male with a history of anxiety, bipolar affective disorder, schizophrenia, and previous seizure event thought to be EtOH related presented to enrolling center ED via EMS 2/8/17 at 20:47 with seizures. Seizure in route abated with 4mg midazolam IM EMS administered. On initial assessment patient was sedated, but responded to noxious stimuli. Sedation thought to be due to EtOH, versed, and post-ictal state. Labs and CT head ordered. In CT patient had repeat seizure. He was given midazolam 3 mg IM and was brought back to ER. He appeared to continue to be having seizure so additional midazolam 3 mg IV was given. Seizure appeared to resolve. Neurology consulted to ER. Patient return of seizures occurred at approximately 2240. He was given an additional lorazepam 2 mg IV. Seizure continued for 5 minutes so ESETT drug was given. Study drug infusion started at 23:01. During infusion, pt appeared to have aspiration event. Infusion completed and patient stopped seizing and withdrew from nailbed pressure. At 20 minute assessment he was still responding to noxious stimulation. He was intubated for airway protection due to apparent aspiration event. He was sedated with propofol post intubation. Pt was admitted to the ICU for further diagnosis and management. 60 minute assessment at 00:15 revealed pt was sedated but withdrew from nailbed pressure. On 2/10/17 about 13:15 he was electively extubated. 2/10/17 1900 many verbally aggressive outbursts noted. 2/11/17 09:03 patient left AMA, after psychiatric evaluation
Too much - continued 35 y.o. male with a history of anxiety, bipolar affective disorder, schizophrenia, complex psychiatric history and previous seizure event thought to be EtOH related and prior alcohol related seizures presented to enrolling center ED via EMS 2/8/17 at 20:47 with seizures. Seizure in route abated with 4mg midazolam IM EMS administered. On initial assessment patient was sedated, but responded to noxious stimuli. Sedation thought to be due to EtOH, versed, and post-ictal state. Labs and CT head ordered. In CT patient had repeat seizure. He was given midazolam 3 mg IM and was brought back to ER. He appeared to continue to be having seizure so additional midazolam 3 mg IV was given. Seizure appeared to resolve. Neurology consulted to ER. Patient return of seizures occurred at approximately 2240. He was given an additional lorazepam 2 mg IV. Seizure continued for 5 minutes so ESETT drug was given. Study drug infusion started at 23:01. During infusion, pt appeared to have aspiration event. had stuttering status epilepticus, received midazolam 10 mg and lorazepam 2 mg in divided doses over 2 hours, and enrolled on 2/8/17 at 23:01, followed by an aspiration event and transient hypoxia. .
Too much - continued Infusion completed and patient stopped seizing and withdrew from nailbed pressure. At 20 minute assessment he was still responding to noxious stimulation. He was intubated for airway protection due to apparent aspiration event. He stopped seizing but remained poorly responsive. He was endotracheally intubated at 23:25 for airway protective and decreased level of consciousness and risk of further aspiration. He was sedated with propofol post intubation. Pt was admitted to the ICU for further diagnosis and management. 60 minute assessment at 00:15 revealed pt was sedated but withdrew from nailbed pressure. He was sedated with propofol and admitted to ICU. Normal CXR and no sequelae of aspiration on 2/9/17. On 2/10/17 about 13:15 he was electively extubated. 2/10/17 1900 many verbally aggressive outbursts noted. 2/11/17 09:03 patient left AMA, after psychiatric evaluation Extubated on 2/10/17.
Too much - resolution 35 y.o. male with a history of anxiety, bipolar affective disorder, schizophrenia, and previous seizure event thought to be EtOH related presented to enrolling center ED via EMS 2/8/17 at 20:47 with seizures. Seizure in route abated with 4mg midazolam IM EMS administered. On initial assessment patient was sedated, but responded to noxious stimuli. Sedation thought to be due to EtOH, versed, and post-ictal state. Labs and CT head ordered. In CT patient had repeat seizure. He was given midazolam 3 mg IM and was brought back to ER. He appeared to continue to be having seizure so additional midazolam 3 mg IV was given. Seizure appeared to resolve. Neurology consulted to ER. Patient return of seizures occurred at approximately 2240. He was given an additional lorazepam 2 mg IV. Seizure continued for 5 minutes so ESETT drug was given. Study drug infusion started at 23:01. During infusion, pt appeared to have aspiration event. Infusion completed and patient stopped seizing and withdrew from nailbed pressure. At 20 minute assessment he was still responding to noxious stimulation. He was intubated for airway protection due to apparent aspiration event. He was sedated with propofol post intubation. Pt was admitted to the ICU for further diagnosis and management. 60 minute assessment at 00:15 revealed pt was sedated but withdrew from nailbed pressure. On 2/10/17 about 13:15 he was electively extubated. 2/10/17 1900 many verbally aggressive outbursts noted. 2/11/17 09:03 patient left AMA, after psychiatric evaluation A 35 yo with complex psychiatric history and prior alcohol related seizures had stuttering status epilepticus, received midazolam 10 mg and lorazepam 2 mg in divided doses over 2 hours, and enrolled on 2/8/17 at 23:01, followed by an aspiration event and transient hypoxia. He stopped seizing but remained poorly responsive. He was endotracheally intubated at 23:25 for airway protective and decreased level of consciousness and risk of further aspiration. He was sedated with propofol and admitted to ICU. Normal CXR and no sequelae of aspiration on 2/9/17. Extubated on 2/10/17.
Not enough Blood culture positive for beta hemolytic strep, left peripheral line. Patient started Levaquin 750 mg oral tablet qd x 10 days
Not enough Blood culture positive for beta hemolytic strep, left peripheral line. Patient started Levaquin 750 mg oral tablet qd x 10 days A 42 yo with epilepsy and prior TBI was enrolled on 3/15/17 at 9:02PM. On [date?] she had fever, leukocytosis, and underwent a workup for an infectious source. Blood culture grew strep agalactiae sensitive to ceftriaxone and levofloxacin, but no other source was found. She was treated with ceftriaxone IV x 4 days, and levofloxacin PO x 10 days, and had no further fevers.
Style points Use generic drug names Use a spell checker Have the site PI read critically
